Wednesday, 28 October 2015

29 October 2015

The uproar
Westpac Bank has understandably caused by releasing personal details regarding
Nicky Hager to the Police highlights once more the fragility of public
protections in the age of increasing datafication. No matter how it is
explained, it is clear Westpac obviously overstepped the mark and will now have
to deal with the wrath of customers and the likely loss of accounts that has
unleashed.

While that is its
commercial problem, the bigger issue this incident highlights once again is the
need to ensure the greatest safeguards are both in place and upheld when it
comes to the protection of personal privacy. Of course, there is a tension.
Citizens have shown overwhelmingly their growing desire to do their business –
with the government and the private sector – digitally. And, of course, they
expect there to be a reasonable level of basic information-sharing between
agencies to prevent duplication and save their time. But alongside that, they
have an equally strong expectation that there will not be abuses, and all
reasonable attempts will be made to ensure that fundamental values such as the
right to personal privacy and safety are not compromised.

The reality is
that the age of information-sharing is here to stay, so the challenge is not so
much one of holding fast the ramparts against the sharing of data, as it is one
of drawing the boundaries clearly, so that the benefits of more
information-sharing always outweigh the costs. Information-sharing needs to be
customer driven, rather than at the convenience and behest of institutions. For
their part, institutions, private and governmental, must never forget that the
information they gather and hold is on behalf of citizens, for their genuine
benefit. It is not the institutions’ information to be shared at their whim.

It is too easy
for politicians to keep saying that better information-sharing is the answer to
every problem. While that is undoubtedly true in a number of instances, it is
not universally so. There has to be a purpose to information-gathering and
sharing – it cannot be just an end in itself. As citizens, we have a right to
expect that, not just to be part of an ever-increasing database. Digital
transformation is not just about system upgrades, or greater sophistication –
to be sustainable its focus has to be on demonstrating a positive, specific and
noticeable benefit to the citizen. Convenience must always be balanced by the
right to privacy citizens enjoy.

The Westpac case
is a good example of what happens when either systems fail, or more likely, the
people operating them seek to make a moral judgement about the worth of the
information they hold and how it might contribute to what they see as a greater
good.

Incidents like
this do nothing to build public confidence in the sustainability of a digital
future. New Zealand is at the forefront of nations providing services
digitally, and our ongoing ability to make progress and secure greater benefits
for our citizens rests on their general support. Every privacy breach threatens
that goodwill.

That ongoing
tension between the advantage of a more digitally oriented society and the
protection of personal privacy will not abate while there is any whiff that
institutions are cavalier with the personal privacy details they hold. There have
been too many incidents in New Zealand in recent years where personal privacy
has been sacrificed for a perceived greater good. While that bias remains, we
will not secure the full advantages of digital transformation.

Ultimately, this
process has to be about using digital transformation to enhance people’s
quality of life, and not just one more way to subjugate and control them.